Again, I'm expressing my naivety about the different factors of a newspaper business, but today's lecture about outsourcing copy editors was interesting and something that I never considered possible.

The idea of outsourcing is not a new concept to me; half the calls I make to "Customer Service Lines" get directed to someone overseas. Once, I even had a five-minute discussion with someone from the Philippines, who asked me where my parents were from and forgot about helping me with my Mac. Come to think of it, I don't even know who she figured out I was Filipino over the phone.

Anyway, outsourcing those types of jobs make sense; businesses that distribute their products throughout the country and nation-wide don't need to keep their jobs within the country, necessarily.

However, I feel that the newspaper industry should not jump on the bandwagon and outsource jobs. A newspaper, for the most part, is not a product that that is distributed throughout the country and read by millions of people (unless it's the New York Times, etc.). And, unlike a book – which someone brought up in class to compare to newspapers – newspapers are filled with content about the local community and read by that same target audience. I feel that it ruins the quality of a newspaper somewhat if someone from outside of that area edits content about places and events that they might never have even heard. It would be tough enough for a copy editor from the News-Gazette in Champaign-Urbana, for example, to edit copy for a newspaper in Kissimmee, Florida. The further the job gets outsourced, the harder it will become.

I think the reason this was even considered a possibility is because some people may not consider how important the job of a copy-editor is and how, just like reporters, it's necessary for a copy-editor to be familiar with the environment in which he or she works.

Roy Peter Clark acknowledged that copy-editors are usually the "last line of defense" and I don't understand why newspapers would want to risk that by outsourcing that "protection".

The Quality-Control Quandary

Before this semester, I never fully appreciated the role of a newspaper's copy editor. Sure, I've had my own fair share of editing a reporter's copy, fixing grammar and punctuation mistakes here and there, but that was about as far as my copy editing experience has taken me. As the semester winds down, however, I've realized that a copy editor's role is more important to a newspaper than I thought.

This article, "The Quality-Control Quandary," really brought to light how newspapers have been suffering because of the lack of copy editors in their newsrooms. The article questioned whether or not the credibility of newspapers' have gone down because of copy editor cutbacks and discussed how newsrooms are trying to adjust to the different forms of editing.

While some of these new forms of editing seem to work - newsrooms are compensating for their lack of copy editors by safeguarding the editorial process and requiring journalists to take more responsibility of their work - I have a problem with "back-editing" and "buddy editing." It's as if newsrooms are condoning publishing articles that may potentially have mistakes (grammar, punctuation and factual ones) because they can "just fix it later."

I understand that in this day and age, newsrooms are focusing on being the one to get the news out first. But, I'd rather risk being the last one to break the news instead of risking the possibility that my newsroom will gain a bad reputation for our poor editing and reporting skills.

It's sad that as the economy fails, newsrooms have to suffer with copy editor cutbacks. True, it's important to keep reporters, but it's also important to maintain credibility, and I believe copy editors are the right solution for that.

supposedly supposably is incorrect.

I spent the majority of my spring break in Orlando, Florida (the weather was really nice, thanks for asking! =) ), including a total of two very long days of driving with my friends.

Before we left, I prepared myself and assumed that a 17+ hour drive from Illinois to Florida would include a lot of uncomfortable sleep, countless bathroom breaks and an SUV floor scattered with snack crumbs and empty water bottles – which it did.

With nothing else to do on the long drive, my friends and I brought up very random topics to talk about, including one that – surprisingly – revolved around the misuse of certain words, which explains why I’m even talking about my spring break in the first place.

About halfway into the drive (which is about 10 hours), one of my friends asked if it was going to rain at all during the time we’d be in Florida. My other friend answered with “supposably”. It took me a few seconds to realize what he had said, but I gave him the benefit-of-the-doubt, assumed I had heard wrong and kept my mouth shut.

But, as the drive continued, that same friend kept using “supposably”. I got so irritated that I corrected him as nicely as possible – I hope – which then started a five-minute argument about whether “supposably” was even a word .

We didn’t have access to internet until we got to Florida to check who was right, so the conversation moved to other words people misused on a daily basis (such as who/whom, beside/besides, etc.).

The conversation amused me for several reasons:
Part of me couldn't believe that we were talking about grammar on our trip down to Florida, but a bigger part of me felt that we should have had that conversation sooner.

The English language is a tricky thing, and it's understandable why so many words are misused. I believe ignorance and laziness are both to blame. While some people simply don't know the difference between certain words and when to use them properly in a sentence, I feel that a lot of people are just too lazy to find out the correct uses.

While this may not seem like a problem to many, I worry that a time will come when journalists, copy editors and editors alike will also become too ignorant/lazy to use the proper form of a word in sentences.

If we all make an effort to practice proper grammar now, hopefully that won't happen.

Oh, and for anyone who was wondering, "supposably" is not a word.

Would you print these Photos?

FIRST
If these four pictures of the late Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer ran together in a news story, I think they would gain the most attention. But, a newspaper should never run pictures for the sole purpose of sensationalism, and I think editors need to be sensitive of the situation and of the readers who will eventually pick up the paper and read / see the gruesome details. I would choose picture 2a. (which is the one of Dwyer holding the gun in front of him) because it captures the moment, without going overboard. Picture 1a. is somewhat confusing; if I saw that picture and didn't read the news article that accompanied it, I would think that Dwyer was defending himself. Pictures 3a. and 4a. are too much for a newspaper; readers can get the full effect of the story without having to see a picture of a gun in his mouth or the back of his head being blown up.

SECOND:
The biggest factor that I considered while looking at all of these pictures is the news-worthiness of each one. Are these photos the best ones to use to tell a story, or would other ones suffice that would give readers the same insight into an event? I also used gauged my first-impression on each picture; if I felt uneasy looking at it, I assumed that other readers would feel the same way.

I think picture 1 would be an appropriate photo to run in a newspaper, as long as a relevant story ran with it. This picture is both sad and riveting at the same time; you can feel the boy's grief over his dead dog. At the same time, the picture has taste; the dog is not mangled, the boy is not covered in its blood, etc. I believe this photo would enhance the article that accompanied it.

I was a little hesitant with my decision to run pictures 3 and 5, but my deciding factor was still the news-worthiness of each photo. Picture 3 reflects the aftermath of the gunman's shooting spree; without this photo, I don't think readers would fully understand the tragedy of this situation. The effect is different if someone were to read that a newspaper employee murdered seven, killed 13 and killed himself compared to if they saw a picture of one of the victim's. Granted, if you were able to fully identify who the victim was in the photo, I would not run it in respect to the victim and the victim's family.

I was disgusted with picture 5 – not because of the photo itself, but of the actions and context behind that photo. Because her identity is unknown and her face is obscured, I think this picture should be run in a paper. It spotlights how dangerous celebrations of that sort can be, and will give readers a better idea of what could happen. Instead of just reading about an unidentified woman who had her clothes torn off on Fat Tuesday, seeing this photo gives readers a better understanding of what happened and will hopefully make them think twice about their actions or attending an event like this in the future.

I would not run pictures 2 and 4 simply because I was slightly revolted when I looked at them. I feel that picture 2 is too intrusive; the photographer is capturing a family at a most vulnerable time. The family's wishes must be considered before running this photo; the parents might not want this picture made public, especially since their dead son's body can easily be seen at the bottom of the picture. I think this moment is too private and would cause too much grief for the family if they were to see it in the papers.
Thankfully, the boy was okay, but I was barely able to stomach looking at picture 4. I wouldn't appreciate waking up in the morning and seeing this picture splashed across the front page of my local newspaper, and although it is news-worthy, I believe the news article would be enough to inform readers about the incident. If this picture ran in a paper, I would view it as a result of poor taste and judgment.

I have a long list of pet peeves. Whenever something consistently tends to annoy me, I mentally add it my list (ie: self-check out counters at stores, people who don’t say “please” or “thank you”, etc.), and if I had the time, I’d rattle off some more of them.

However, one of my biggest annoyances is the misuse of the word “your” with the contraction “you’re”.

During my time as EIC of my high school newspaper, I’d catch the mix-up in a lot of my reporters’ articles. Nowadays, I see it used when I talk to my friends via iChat or texts. Needless to say, it bothers me.

I’ve wondered to myself exactly how those two words can get so mixed up. For example, if someone wrote a sentence that said: “Your so busy with school”, I would assume that they would say the sentence in their head and realize it sounds funny. And, that they would just know the difference between “your” and “you are.” But, maybe that’s just my assumption.

I think there are many factors to blame for the misuse of those two words.

I believe that our lazy way of communicating has led many of us to use “ur” to stand for both “your” and “you are” (I admit that I am to blame for using “ur” a lot), and when it comes time to use the two words formally, it becomes hard to tell the difference.

Being exposed to the different ways “your” and “you’re” is used in the English language also plays a part. I was – and still am – a bookworm, so I’ve seen the different uses and it has just been engrained in me.

I try not to correct my friends too often, however, because I’m sure one of their pet peeves is “Jemma always corrects my grammar.”

I’m not sure if anyone else is as bothered by this as I am, but I just thought I would share it!

Anyway, check out this wikiHow “How to use You’re and Your” page; it has some nice tips and amusing pictures for anyone interested.

** This has nothing to do with what I just talked about, but I found a website that explains the “life cycle” of a blog. You learn something new everyday. =)

To hyphen or not to hyphen ..

According to the AP Stylebook's Punctuation Guide, a hyphen is required when describing someone of dual heritage. For example, a person who considers himself Asian and American would be described as "Asian-American". The same goes for anyone who is Italian-American, Mexican-American, African-American and so on.

Once, I made the mistake of not including the hyphen in one of my JOUR 400 articles and after getting my paper back – red-ink-mark-ups and all – I never made that mistake again. It was a small lesson learned; if the AP Stylebook said there was a hyphen in between a proper noun and its adjective, then there would be a hyphen. No questions asked; it wasn't a big deal.

However, after taking several Asian American Studies classes, I learned that that particular hyphen placement is a very big deal to many in the Asian [hyphen] American community. In fact, that hyphen has been the cause of much controversy. Many believe that the hyphen between "Asian" and "American" indicates that Asian-Americans are different than other Americans; as if the hyphen is necessary to make people of Asian descent more "American".

It's amazing to me that the decision about where to place a small punctuation mark could have such big implications. I wonder if the Associated Press realized the debate that has stirred up due to this simple grammar rule.

For anyone interested, here are some links to read more about this issue:
Hyphen Magazine & Hyphenated American

"Newspaper Death Watch"

"Newspaper Death Watch" is such an optimistic title for a blog, isn't it?

As I typed in the website URL, I figured the website name was pretty self-explanatory and I would find a website dedicated to reporting on the decline of newspapers. I was right.

The website is a blog run by Paul Gillin, a technology journalist, who describes himself as a "newspaper junkie" and claims that he loves newspapers. But, if a person didn't read Gillin's "About Me" section before reading his posts, I believe he/she would think differently.

Gillin posts about anything related to the present-day "newspaper struggle"; he reports on media companies' dismal profits and newspapers throughout the country that are meeting their downfall, for example.

At first, I got the impression that Gillin had a very pessimistic viewpoint on the newspaper industry. After all, it's not very heartening reading his "newspaper obituaries" that list various newspapers that are publishing their last issue, laying off employees, etc. But, after reading a few of his recent posts, I realized that Gillin isn't being entirely pessimistic – he's just being very realistic about the future of this specific medium of journalism.

This website was an eye-opener for me, to say the least. Although I knew that print journalism was struggling, I never realized it was this bad – or at least, as bad as Gillin reports.

It is nice to know that the newspaper industry is "fighting back", however. In one of Gillin's posts, he writes about the "Newspaper Project", a campaign meant to emphasize how big of a role newspapers play in people's everyday lives. While it's a good sign to know that that newspapers are taking the "offense", as Gillin puts it, I find it sad that they even have to do this in the first place.